g1 Discussions

Use a Facebook account to add a comment, subject to Facebook's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your Facebook name, photo & other personal information you make public on Facebook will appear with your comment, and may be used on ScrewAttack's media platforms.

there are tons of people who think that, many of which are very condescending to those who prefer Smash over other, more traditional fighters. There reasons are stupid and nonsensical, any reason that keeps Smash from being a fighting game can be removed or minimalized via options and banning, but because their there by default, means its not a fighting game. Honestly to me its a fighter, but it shouldn't really matter; its just a label, its sad how some people get all worked up over whether it is or not.

Just saying the whole items thing, and randomness...
Street Fighter x Tekken is everything brawl/melee is
Item = Gems
it even has a 4 player scramble mode where everyone can be on the screen.
So by logic that means SFxT is not a fighting game and shouldn't be at Evo.

Odd thing is Smash is still a amazing fighting game that does require skill because you can still die at low percentages meanwhile you have comeback mechanics (Hello X-Factor) in other fighting games that allow you to "Turn the tides" with a lucky random hit. (I'm looking at you wesker and doom)

Honorable Mention to Mr. Pheonix Wright in MvC3 for the whole random thing.

It has been played at EVO, every year since 2007. With all due respect to Craig, every point he made was shot down by virtually everyone else in the room at the time; points founded on assumptions that had no fact backing them up whatsoever.

Implying that Smash is not a fighter because of slight differences is like saying Mario 64 isn't a platformer because it's in the third dimension and didn't use power-ups as a health system -- it's ludicrous.

In any case, this video was interesting and funny, and I think I've just found a new show to sub to.

1. They weren't saying only fighting games have tournaments, they were replying to one of the most common arguments, that Smash Bros. takes no skill, with the fact that all the tournaments and hardcore players PROVES there is skill and strategy to it.

2. No one was implying it'd be inferior if it WASN'T a fighting game, they were just taking up the controversy of whether or not it was a fighting game. If they decided Smash wasn't, that wouldn't of made Brawl or Melee any less great games.

I like Brawl but I'm not really good at smash bros.
Also I find this video to be completely WRONG. Pokemon has high level strategy, lingo, tournament and competive play but it isn't a fighter. Just because it centered a round fighting doesn't mean it is a fighter. Fallout﻿ and Metriod aren't shooters but they heavily involve shooting they are an RPG and an adventure. But here's the thing not being put in that catergory doesn't mean it is inferior and implying that is just rude.

I consider the Super Smash Bros. games to be in the same boat as games such as Power Stone, Digimon Battle Spirits, OnePiece Grand Adventure, and the Jump! Superstar games. They are competitions against other characters, but they also incorporate elements of a platforming game. That is why I call them Platform Fighters.

a fighting game to me is defined as any game where combat is focused on a specific number of opponents, usually 1 - 5 others, at one time in a battlefield that is enclosed and restricted to a small field of play, which would include brawling type fighters like Super Smash Bros. Also why does everyone hate on the item system. it doesn't take away from the skill it adds to it. seeing an item and being efficient in getting it and using it to its full potential.